丹尼尔·卡尼曼：算法比你更会做决策

延缓你的直觉。不要试图快速形成直觉，这是我们通常的做法。专注于各个独立的要点。当你掌握了全貌后，再形成直觉，这样会更好。

Delay your intuition. Don't try to form an intuition quickly, which is what we normally do. Focus on the separate points. And then when you have the whole profile, then you can have an intuition, and it's going to be better.

欢迎来到《知识工程》播客。我是主持人肖恩·帕里什。在这个知识就是力量的世界里，这档播客是你掌握他人智慧结晶的工具包，让你能将他们的洞见运用于生活。在进入访谈前，我想分享一个未剪进正片的片段。我最早在2000年代初接触到丹尼尔·卡尼曼的研究成果。

Welcome to The Knowledge Project. I'm your host, Shane Parrish. In a world where knowledge is power, this podcast is your toolkit for mastering the best what other people have already figured out, so you can use their insights in your life. Before we get into the interview, I want to tell you about a moment that didn't make it into the episode. I first came across Daniel Kahneman's work in the early 2000s.

他对我和全球无数人的影响堪称非凡。2019年我在他纽约家中与他促膝长谈时，心中积攒了无数问题。卡尼曼2002年获得诺贝尔经济学奖，却从未修过经济学课程。他的核心主张非常简单：想要做出更好决策，我们需要借助外力。

His impact on me and so many people around the globe has been unbelievable. By the time I sat down with him in his New York City home in 2019, I had so many questions for him. Condon won a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002, yet he never took an economics course. His central message was very simple. If we want to make better decisions, we need help.

丹尼于去年2024年3月27日逝世，享年90岁。这次对话成为聆听这位时代最具影响力思想家亲述的最后机会之一。我每周都会收到关于这期节目的反馈，听众们从中获得从生活到决策方方面面的新洞见。

Danny died last year on 03/27/2024. He was 90. This conversation is now one of the final opportunities to hear directly from one of the most influential thinkers of our time. I get messages about this episode every week. People come away with new insights on everything from life to decision making.

最近重听时发现它历久弥新，这正是我重新发布的原因。以损失厌恶为例——他最重要的发现之一。为什么损失100美元的痛苦程度是获得100美元愉悦感的两倍？这种不对称性影响着一切。

I re listened to it recently and it's timeless. That's exactly why I'm republishing it. Consider loss aversion, one of his most important discoveries. Why does losing $100 hurt twice as much as gaining $100 feels good? The asymmetry affects everything.

它影响着你的股票投资组合、高尔夫球技。当投资组合下跌时查看，你就会开始做出情绪化决策。高尔夫球员为保帕推杆时比抓鸟时更精准。但访谈临近结束时发生了这样一幕：丹尼的手机突然大声响起。

It affects your stock portfolio, your golf game. Check your portfolio when it's down, and you'll start making emotional decisions. A golfer putts better for power than for birdie. But here's what happened near the end of our interview. Danny's phone rang and it was loud.

他忘记关闭铃声。当时采访已近尾声，但他接听了。对方显然想邀请他演讲或评审书籍。他用一句让我至今难忘的话结束了通话：我的原则是从不在电话里答应任何事。

He'd forget to turn it off. And we're almost done the interview at this point, but he answered. And someone obviously wanted him to give a talk or review a book. He ended the call with words that have stayed with me since then. My rule is I never say yes on the phone.

我明天再回复你。我本想当场讨论这个问题，但时间不够了。收拾设备时我问了他这件事。这个规则是个小技巧，避免直觉性答应。这给了他思考的时间。

I'll get back to you tomorrow. I wanted to discuss that on air, but we ran out of time. As I packed up my gear, I asked him about that. This rule was a trick to avoid saying yes intuitively. It gave him time to think.

他总是被各种请求轰炸，经常违心答应。起初他尝试拒绝：那个日期不行，时间安排不合适。但结果往往演变成谈判。

He's always bombarded with requests, and he often says yes when he didn't want to. At first, he would try saying no. That date doesn't work. That timeline doesn't work. But what happened in those moments was it turned into a negotiation.

换个日期如何？调整时间表怎样？于是他制定了这个规则。在我看来，这是他最实用的发现。大多数人甚至不知道这点。

What about another date? Another timeline? So, he hit on this rule. And to me, this is his most practical discovery. Most people don't even know about it.

这个规则能重塑潜意识。让理想行为成为默认行为，这力量惊人。它改变了我的人生，我现在每天都锻炼。

This rule lets you reprogram your unconscious mind. Your desired behavior becomes your default behavior. And that's incredibly powerful. It changed my life. I now exercise every day.

这比每周三次更容易。运动时长和内容可以调整，但锻炼本身雷打不动。五年来我大概只中断过五天。我在《清晰思考》书中谈过这点，这个概念改变了许多人，包括我好友Brent Beshore（第196期节目），我们略有讨论。

It's actually easier than three times a week. The activity duration and scope can change, but working out and exercising doesn't. I think I've missed five days in five years at this point. And I talk about this in my book, Clear Thinking, and the concept has changed so many lives, including my great friend, Brent Beshore, in episode 196. We talk about this a little.

重温对话时几个点很突出：首先是快乐与满足的区别。快乐是感受，主要是社交层面——我是否与爱我且我爱的人在一起？

Several parts of this conversation stuck out when I was re listening to it. First, we talk about happiness versus satisfaction. Happiness is feelings. It's mostly social. Am I with the people who love me and whom I love back?

而满足是对生活、工作、事业等常规方面的感受。Danny认为人们更渴望满足而非快乐。其次是行为改变：让好行为更容易，坏行为更困难。关键洞察是所有行为都是平衡状态，与其强迫改变，不如问为何人们还没行动。

Satisfaction on the other hand is how you feel about your life, your job, your career, conventional aspects. Danny argued people want satisfaction more than happiness. Second, changing behavior. Make good behavior easier and bad behavior harder. The insight all behavior is equilibrium rather than pushing people to change, ask why they aren't doing it already.

第三，行为具有情境性。想理解行为？观察情境。当某人做出不合常理的举动时，问问自己：世界需要呈现怎样的面貌才能使这种行为合理？第四，代理人为你做出的决策在某些类型的选择上胜过你自己。

Third, behavior is situational. Want to understand behavior? Look at the situation. When someone acts in ways that don't make sense, ask yourself, what would the world have to look like for that behavior to make sense? Fourth, agents making decisions on your behalf beat you at certain types of decisions.

它们没有沉没成本，也没有情感。布莱恩·约翰逊在第188期节目中谈到这点——他将健康决策权交给了一套算法，因为该算法比他本人能做出更优选择。第五，我们的信念更多由人而非事实塑造。

They have no sunk cost. They have no emotions. Brian Johnson talks about this in episode 188. He turned his health decisions over to effectively an algorithm because that algorithm makes better decisions than he does. Fifth, our beliefs are formed by people more than facts.

我们认同自己喜欢的人，即便与事实相悖。比起讨厌之人说的真话，人们更容易相信喜欢之人说的谎言。我们形成了身份认同信念——自由派、保守派、民主党、共和党永远正确。若他们错了，就等于我们错了，而我们无法承受这点。

We agree with people we like, despite the facts. It's easier to believe a lie from someone you like than a truth from someone you dislike. We form identity beliefs. Liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, they can do no wrong. If they're wrong, we're wrong, and we can't handle that.

最后是直觉。丹尼对此论述过多，答案已显重复。于是我调整提问方式，将他惯常回答嵌入问题中，迫使他进行更深层次思考。无论初次收听还是第三次聆听，你都将获得能运用于生活的见解。

Finally, intuition. Danny had talked about this so much, his answers sounded repetitive. So I framed my question on this to include his typical answer in the question, forcing him to think a little deeper. Whether this is your first listen or your third, you'll come away with ideas that you can use in life.

丹尼尔，很高兴有机会和你交谈。

Daniel, I'm so happy to get a chance to talk to you.

嗯，很高兴你能来。

Well, I'm happy to have you here.

你的童年是怎样的？你小时候是什么样的人？

What was your childhood like? What were you like as a child?

天啊，那是很久以前的事了。如你所料，我小时候是个书呆子。大概三四岁时，我就以为自己会当教授，因为人们总说我将来会当教授——可能因为我说话总用些深奥词汇之类的。后来整个童年时期...要知道二战爆发时我才五岁。

Oh my god. That was a long time ago. I was I was a nerdy child, as you might expect, I suppose. I was I thought I'd be a professor when I was, like, three or four years old, because people told me I would be, because I probably spoke with long words and stuff like that. So, and then the rest of my childhood, I mean, I was five when World War II began.

当时我是法国的犹太人，所以童年很艰难。但从那时起...不过确实，我就是个书呆子小孩，运动神经特别差。幸运的是，12岁搬到以色列后他们让我跳了一级，这才好些。但那就是真实的我。

So and I was a Jew in France, so I've had a difficult childhood, but from that point on. But but I was I like, yeah, I was a I was a nerdy child. I was, quite inept physically. Very fortunately for me, when I finally moved to Israel at age 12, they held me up a grade and then that was alright, but that's, that's what I was like.

有什么特别的教训或记忆让您印象深刻吗？

Are there any particular lessons or memories that stand out for you?

我常说起两件事。一是很早我就显露出心理学天赋——这非常明显。11岁前我写过一篇作文，记得是因为当时德军正在反攻。

There are two of them that I speak about. So one is that I was, I was a psychologist very early on. That was, was very clear. I I wrote an essay, before I was 11. I remember where because it was it was a German counterattack.

那时我们暂居巴黎。我写了篇关于信仰与宗教的作文，口气特别浮夸。我有本小册子叫《论我所思所写》之类装腔作势的标题。文章开头还引用了帕斯卡的话来显摆——我姐姐通过考试后我读过他的书。

It was during a period we were in Paris. And I wrote an essay about faith and religion, and it was a very pompous essay. I had a little book that was titled What I Write About What I Think Something Pompous Like That. But the essay started with another pompous thing that I quoted Pascal. My my sister had passed her exams, I had read no.

她学过帕斯卡思想，我也读了。帕斯卡说'信仰是上帝在人心中的显现'。年幼的我写道：多么正确啊！这就是我文章的开头。但接着我写：但获得信仰实在困难。

She studied some Pascal, and I had read it. And Pascal had said that faith is God made sensible to the heart. And, you know, little me, I said, how true. That's what my essay said. And then but then I said, but faith is really hard to get.

你无法时刻感知上帝。所以宗教仪式才存在——大教堂、管风琴音乐，它们提供...我称之为'替代性信仰'，因为能唤起相似感受。这种感受与上帝相关，而你必须与之共处。这就是心理学家的思维方式。

You don't sense God all the time. So that's what religious pomp is for. Cathedrals, organ music, they give you, and I call that osat's faith, sort of a substitute faith, because it's a it's a similar feeling. It's got to do with God, and that's what you must do with. That's that's a psychologist.

所以，你知道，那就是我的使命，那是我童年时期的一个重要记忆。

So it's that, you know, that was my calling, and so that's one significant memory of my childhood.

所以你想成为一名心理学家。

So you wanted to be a psychologist.

我想是的。我是说，你知道，我一直持有那种观点，后来在青少年时期，我对所有哲学问题都很感兴趣，比如上帝是否存在、什么是善与恶之类的问题，以及为什么我们不应该自慰，你知道，都是些严肃的问题。但我发现，实际上，我对上帝是否存在的问题并不那么感兴趣，而是更感兴趣于人们为什么相信他存在。我觉得那才有趣。

I think so. I think so. I mean, you know, it's always had that point of view that later, as a teenager, I was, you know, interested in all the philosophical issues like, you know, does God exist and what's good and bad and stuff like that, and why shouldn't we masturbate, you know, serious questions. But but I discovered that, actually, I was less interested in the question of whether or not God exists than in why do people believe that he exists. That I thought was interesting.

而且我对什么是善或恶的问题并不特别感兴趣，但我真正感兴趣的是是什么让人们愤怒和愤慨。所以，你知道，事实证明，我从小就持有这种心理学的观点。

And I wasn't particularly interested in the question of what's good or bad, but I was really interested in what makes people angry and indignant. So, you know, I've had the psychological point of view since, turns out, since my childhood.

有没有什么人影响你去研究这个？我是说，作为一个12、13、14岁的男孩有这些梦想是一回事，但把它变成可能是心理学家有史以来最杰出的职业生涯，又是另一回事。

Was there anybody that sort of influenced you to go on to study this? I mean, it's one thing to have these dreams as like a 12, 13, 14 year old boy. It's another to turn this into, you know, probably the most eminent career that's ever happened for a psychologist.

不，不是最著名的职业生涯，你知道，而且我当时并不确定我会从事心理学。当我参加职业测试时，结果显示我擅长心理学和经济学，但你知道，那是出乎意料的。然后我本科选择了心理学和数学，而我在数学上并不特别擅长。所以不，我当时并不知道我有成为心理学家的那种使命。

No, not the most known career, you know, and I wasn't sure actually that I would do psychology. And I, when I took a vocational exam to tell me what I was good at and psychology and economics turned out, but, know, that was unexpected. Was and then I took psychology as an undergraduate and mathematics at which I was not particularly good. So and no. It's not that I knew at the time that, you know, I had that calling to be a psychologist.

我没想到。我以为，你知道，我会成为某个领域的教授。我是说，我以为我会成为一名学者，但不一定是心理学。

Didn't occur to me. I thought, you know, I thought I'd be a professor in one thing or another. I mean, that's I thought I'd be an academic, but not psychology specifically.

你和阿莫斯·迪弗斯基共事很久了。有没有什么特别的故事让你想起与他一起工作时会心一笑？

You worked for a with Amos Diversky for a long time. Are there any particular stories that you remember about working with him that bring a smile to your face?

几乎每件事，和他共事的回忆都让我会心一笑。你知道，他是个非常独特的人。大多数认识他的人都认为他是他们见过最聪明的人。事实上，著名心理学家迪克·尼斯贝特说过，这就像一种智力测试——当你和他在一起时，需要多久才能意识到他比你聪明。而你意识到这一点越快，说明你自己越聪明。

Almost everything, about working with him brings a smile to my face. You know, he was a very immune from a person. Most people who knew him thought that he was the smartest person they'd ever met. And in fact, the famous psychologist, Dick Nesbitt, said that it's sort of an intelligence test when you said that when you are with him is how long does it take you to figure out that he's smarter than you are. And the faster you figure that out, the smarter you are.

所以，你知道的，他极其聪明又非常非常风趣。他经常开玩笑，对自己的笑话也笑得很大声，这种快乐很有感染力。和他在一起时，我也变得特别幽默。我这辈子超过一半的笑声都发生在与他共事的那十年里。

So, you know, he was, he was super bright and very, very funny. He joked a lot. He laughed a lot at his own jokes, and that was infectious. When I was with him, I was very funny too. More than half of my the laughs of my laugh of my lifetime I've had during the ten years I worked with him.

知道什么不该出现在你的夏日计划里吗？被高昂的旧话费账单烫伤。当你忙着制定行程时，话费账单不该成为绊脚石。这就是为什么我推荐转用Mint Mobile。没有噱头，只是大多数人忽略的明智之选。

You know what doesn't belong in your summer plans? Getting burned by your old wireless bill. While you're locking in itineraries, your wireless bill should be the last thing holding you back. That's why I recommend the switch to Mint Mobile. No gimmicks, just a smarter play most people overlook.

生活中你处处都在做精明取舍，这里为何例外？所有套餐都包含高速数据和无限通话短信，覆盖全国最大的5G网络。使用Mint Mobile任何套餐都可保留原有手机和号码，通讯录一键迁移。这个小改变会随时间产生复利，就像所有明智决策一样。

You make smart trade offs everywhere else in life. Why not here? All plans come with a high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest five gs network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. It's a small switch that compounds over time, just like any great decision.

多数人都在白白浪费钱，而这是止损的方法。如果我需要这类产品，我就会选它。节省程度无可匹敌。今年夏天，既不必大汗淋漓，也不必倾家荡产。

Most people leave money on the table. This is how you stop doing that. If I had needed this product, it's what I'd use. The savings are unbeatable. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank.

新用户专享：三个月无限流量套餐每月仅需15美元，请访问mintmobile.com/knowledgeproject。重申：mintmobile.com/knowledgeproject。需预付45美元（相当于每月15美元）。限时新用户专享，仅限前三个月。无限套餐超过35GB后网速可能下降。

Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for $15 a month at mintmobile.com/knowledgeproject. That's mintmobile.com/knowledgeproject. Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may vary above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan.

税费另计。详情请见Mint Mobile。

Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

你对幸福感和满足感做了有趣的区分，能详细解释一下吗？

You have an interesting distinction between happiness and satisfaction. Can you walk us through that?

好的。当然。我是说，'幸福'这个词非常模糊，对不同的人意味着不同的事情。但一个合理的解释是，它与你的情绪有关，与你当下的感受有关，与你生活的情绪基调有关——你的生活是否幸福，你是否享受当下的状态。而生活满意度则是完全不同的概念。满意度是当你思考自己的人生时，对生活产生的感受。

Yeah. Sure. I mean, the word happiness is so ambiguous and it means so many things to many people, but one sensible interpretation of it is that it's got to do with your emotions, with how you feel, with the emotional tone of your life, whether it's a happy life, you know, it's pleasant to be you. Life satisfaction is a completely different thing. I mean, satisfaction is how you feel about your life when you think about your life.

大多数时候，你并不会思考自己的生活，只是单纯地活着。但偶尔你会审视自己的生活，这时你才能判断自己有多满意。这就是生活满意度。它不是简单的满足感，而是对整体生活的评价。

And most of the time, you don't think about your life, you just live. But, you know, sometimes you sort of look, and that's when you determine how satisfied you are. That's life satisfaction. It's not satisfaction, it's life satisfaction.

我们应该平衡这两者吗？你怎么看待它们？是否年轻时应该追求更多幸福感，而年长时更注重生活满意度？

Should we balance the two, or how would you think about them? Should we be more happy when we're younger, more satisfied when we're older?

刚开始研究这个问题时，我从未有过这种想法。最初我认为幸福感——即当下生活的感受——才是真实的现实，而生活满意度只是人们给自己讲的故事，重要的是实时体验快乐。但随着深入研究，我们发现使人感到幸福的环境和使人对生活满意的环境并不相同。幸福感主要来自社交，比如与你爱且爱你的人相处。

That thought had never occurred to me when I began to work on this. I started out thinking that happiness, in that sense, of how you feel when you live, that that was reality, and that life satisfaction was just stories that people tell themselves, and the important thing was to be happy in real time. But later, when we did more research, it turned out that the circumstances that make people happy and the circumstances that make them satisfied with their life are not the same. So happiness is mostly social. It's, you know, it's being with people you love, who love you back.

这就是幸福的主要内涵。而生活满意度则传统得多，与成功相关——金钱、教育、声望等这类东西构成了生活满意度。所以这是两个截然不同的概念。我曾经认为生活满意度无关紧要。

That's that's a lot of what happiness is. Life satisfaction is much more conventional, is to be successful. You know, so it's money, education, prestige, that sort of thing is what life satisfaction is about. So those are two very different things. I thought that life satisfaction is irrelevant.

你知道，我就是这样开始的。我们当时有一个研究项目，试图证明这一点。但几年后，我意识到人们真正追求的生活目标似乎并不在于他们会有多快乐，而是希望对自己的生活感到满意，希望自己的人生有个好故事。

You know, that's how I began. And we we had a research program where we were we were trying to, you know, to show that this is the case. But then after a few years, I realized that what people really want in their life is they don't seem to care about how happy they'll be. They seem to want to be satisfied with their life. They seem to want to have a good story about their life.

于是我陷入了这样的困境：用人们并不特别在意的方式来定义幸福，这显然站不住脚。所以我只能退一步承认，自己完全不知道该如何处理这个问题。

And then I was in the position of saying that to define well-being in a way that people didn't seem to care particularly about, So that was not a tenable position. So I I dropped back into saying that I had no idea how to deal with it.

这是研究结果吗？你们的研究显示超过7万美元后，人们不会变得更快乐，但会更满足？

Was this the result of the research? You did some research that was I think it said above 70,000, you don't become happier, but you become more satisfied?

不。我和普林斯顿著名经济学家安格斯·迪顿的研究表明，就幸福感而言，就情绪基调（无论是积极还是消极）而言，拥有大量金钱不会让你更快乐，但贫穷会让你痛苦。在美国，这个门槛大约是7万美元。超过这个数字后，额外的金钱不会让你情绪上更快乐。但对生活满意度来说，情况就不同了。

No. The research I did with Angus Deaton at Princeton, famous economist, we showed that in terms of happiness, in terms of emotional tone, positive and negative, having a lot of money doesn't make you happier, but being poor makes you miserable. So that's above the threshold that was like $70,000 approximately in The US. Then extra money didn't make you emotionally happier. But with life satisfaction, it was a different story.

生活满意度永远不会餍足，所以钱总是越多越好。因为我认为金钱本质上是成功的代名词，在很多情况下也是主观成就的象征。

With life satisfaction, that doesn't satiate, so it's always good to have more. Because, basically, I think, money is a proxy for success, and it's a proxy for subjective success in many cases.

所以重点不在于花钱或用它做什么。

So it's not necessarily about spending it or doing something with it.

只是一种衡量标准。获取金钱本身。你看那些亿万富翁拼命工作，显然不是因为他们需要更多钱。他们追求更多金钱，是因为这能证明他们在自己的领域很出色。我认为这主要是一种象征意义。

Just a measure. Getting it. I mean, you know, you look at all those people, all those billionaires working their heads off, and they clearly are not doing this because they need more money. They're trying to get more money, and they're trying to get more money because that will be an indication that they're good at what they do. I think mostly it's a proxy.

这些变量中是否有与长寿、幸福感或实质内容相关的？比如激情。

Do either of those variables correlate to longer living, happiness, substance? Passion.

显然两者都有。但你知道，这很难区分。而且我没有继续跟进研究，在决定我不了解什么是幸福后不久，我就基本停止了这个领域的研究，所以没有持续关注。但我认为有明确证据表明，真正快乐对你的健康非常有益。你会活得更长、活得更好，生活满意度也有同样的效果。

Both, apparently. But, you know, it's it's hard to separate. And I haven't been followed, you know, shortly after deciding that I didn't know what well-being was, I sort of stopped doing research on this, so I haven't been following. But I think there's clear evidence that being effectively happy, you know, is very good for you. And you do live longer and you live better and so on, and life satisfaction works in the same direction.

至于能否区分它们，或者哪个更重要，这个我不确定。

Whether it's separable, which of them, you know, is more important, that I don't.

我想稍微转换一下话题，谈谈行为。我很想听听您对'我们可以改变行为'这一观点的深入见解，以及我们该如何着手改变自己的行为？

I wanna switch gears a little bit and talk about behavior. And I'd love your insight expansion upon the idea of we can change behavior, and how do we go about changing our behavior?

嗯，你知道，我对这个前提不太确定，我认为改变行为极其困难。虽然有一些技巧和指导原则，但任何对改变行为持非常乐观态度的人都是在自欺欺人。改变他人行为很难，改变自己的行为更是难上加难。绝非易事。

Well, you know, I'm not sure by the premise, I think changing behavior is extremely difficult. The there are a few tips and, you know, few guidelines about how to do that, but anybody who is very optimistic about changing behavior is just deluded. It's hard to change other people's behavior, it's very hard to change your own. Not simple.

婚姻的本质不就是这个吗？

This is what marriage is all about, right?

除了其他方面，你知道，当已婚人士试图改变对方行为时...这往往难以如愿。我认为这样的婚姻很难幸福。

Among other things, you know, people, when, when, you know, married people try to change each other's behavior. It's a lot of to satisfy. They are not on their way to a good marriage, I think.

降低期望值，我们都会更快乐。确实如此。

We'd all be happier with lower expectations. Yes.

我是说，即便你有期望，也不要试图改变，因为你知道，这很难产生显著效果。再想想

I mean, and and even if you have expectation, don't try to change because, you know, it's very unlikely to work in a significant way. Again, think of

我们通常采用的行为改变方式，无非是让好行为更容易实施，或让不良行为更难发生。

the common ways that we would sort of go about behavior change, and it would be, you know, making good behaviors more easy or negative behaviors harder.

我认为这是核心洞见。当你想影响他人行为时，这个见解非常深刻。我一直觉得这是迄今为止最棒的心理学观点。关键在于，当你想让人从行为A转向B时，可以有两种方式：要么推动他们，要么思考为什么他们还没开始做B？

I think that's the main the main insight. You know, when you want to influence somebody's behavior, that's a very big insight. I've always thought that this is the best psychological idea ever, you know, so far as I'm concerned. But it's that when you want somebody to move from a to b in terms of their behavior, you can think of it that there are two ways of doing it. You can push them, or you can ask the question, why aren't they doing b already?

这是个不寻常的问题。当你追问'为什么不'时，其实是在问：为什么他们没在做本该做的事？这样就能列出一份'应该做'的清单。这是我的导师，那位备受推崇的心理学家提出的，他谈到了制约力。

Which is an unusual question, but, you know, why so then when you ask why why not? Why aren't they doing b as they ought to As they think they ought to. Then you get a list of what's ought to win. That's the psychologist who, my guru on this, my hero and many people's hero. He spoke of restraining forces.

我的意思是，他们没达到预期是有原因的。他把行为比作平衡状态——既有推动力也有制约力。比如说话音量、车速快慢，都可以视为动态平衡。我们总想通过施加推力让人从A转向B。

I mean, so there are reasons why they're not where you want them to be. So he spoke of behavior as an equilibrium. There are forces that are pushing you one way, forces that are pushing you the other way. So how loud you speak, how fast you drive, it's easy to think of it as as an equilibrium. And what we tend to do when we want to move people from A to B is we push them.

我们总是增加驱动力。但库尔特·勒温的洞见是：正确做法应该是削弱制约力。这个精妙观点他通过一个意象说明——从我大学时代就印象深刻（不确定是他原创还是我受启发想象的）：想象一块被两组弹簧固定的木板，要让木板移动，与其在移动方向增加弹簧，不如移除反向作用的弹簧。

We add to the driving forces. And Kutt Lewin's insight was that this is not what you should do. You should actually work on the restraining forces and try to make them weaker. And that's a beautiful point. And he showed, he had that image that, you know, I've had since I was an undergraduate, and I'm not sure actually whether it was his image or something that I drew from reading him, but it's like you have a plank and it's being held by two sets of springs, you know, you want it to move one direction, and so you could add another spring that would push it that way, or it could remove one of the springs that are holding it back.

有趣的是，最引人注目的结果是当它移动时——如果是因为驱动力而移动，而你增加了驱动力，那么在平衡状态下，它会处于比原先更高的张力状态。这是因为你压缩了一根弹簧，所以它回弹得更用力。但如果在平衡时移除约束力，系统上的张力就会减小。那一定是20年前的事了，我觉得这简直太美妙了。

And the interesting thing, and that's the striking outcome, is when it moves, if it moves because of the driving force, you've added to the driving force, then at equilibrium, it will be in a higher state of tension than it was originally. That is because you've compressed one spring and so it's pushing back harder. But if you remove a restraining force at equilibrium, there'll be less tension on the system. Must have been 20 years old. I thought that's just so beautiful.

你希望每个人都了解哪些心理学知识，而你认为他们目前并不知晓？如果这是第一课，那第二课是什么？

What do you wish that everybody knew about psychology that you don't think that they do? If that was class one, what's class two?

第二课是第一课的延伸发展，本质上是同一理念的拓展。第二课的核心是：行为未必反映人格，但行为与情境密切相关。因此，如果人们行为异常，要观察他们所处的环境，以及环境中促使他们如此行动的压力。社会心理学家称之为‘基本归因偏差’——当你看到人们某种行为时，往往会认为是其人格使然。

You know, class two, which is a development from class one, you know, it's the same idea, extended. Class two is that behaviors don't necessarily reflect the personality, but behaviors have a lot to do with the situation. And so if people behave in strange ways, look at the situation they're in, and what are the pressures in the situation that make them act as well. So there is a bias that the social psychologist, well known social psychologist, call the fundamental attribution error. And that means that when you see people acting in some way, you think that it's because of their personality that they do it.

事实可能并非如此。很可能是情境迫使他们这样做。我希望人们明白动机是复杂的——人们做好事可能出于善恶交织的缘由，做坏事也可能夹杂善恶动机。心理学教育的意义就在于让人减少妄断，多些同理心与耐心，因为武断评判毫无益处。

That may not be the case. It's quite likely that the situation is making them do it. I'd like people to know that motivation is complex, and that people do good things for a mixture of good and bad reasons, and they do bad things for a mixture of good and bad reasons. And I think that there is a point to educating people in psychology is to make them less judgmental. Just have more empathy and more patience, and being judgmental doesn't get you anywhere.

谈到情境因素时，我想到我们总容易给朋友提建议。但若身处其境，我们未必能看清。为何会这样？为什么给别人建议容易得多？

When you talk about situational, one of the things that comes to mind is it's so easy for us to give our friends advice. But if we were in that situation, we might not necessarily see it. Why is that the case? Why is it so much easier to give other people advice?

情感会干扰理性思考。我们称之为‘禀赋效应’的现象就是：我卖三明治时索要的价格，会高于我购买它时愿意支付的价格。对此有多种解释，但我倾向于认为‘放弃的痛苦大于获得的快乐’。有趣的是，当代理人替他人决策时，他们就没有损失厌恶——代理人会以相同价格买卖，这才是经济理性的做法。

I mean, feelings get in the way of clear thinking. There is a phenomenon that that we call the endowment effect, which is that when I'd ask for more money to sell you my sandwich than I'd pay to get it, I mean, that's essentially the endowment effect. And our explanation of it, there are many explanations, but a story I like to tell about it is that it's more painful to give something up than to get something. But there is an interesting result that if you have an agent making decisions on somebody's behalf, that agent doesn't have loss aversion. So that agent sells and buys at the same price, which is the economically rational thing to do.

这延伸到政策和政府层面就至关重要。政府就像代理人，需要考虑社会福祉。代理人会采取经济视角，关注最终结果，却忽略了某些人会因其改革而受损。事实证明，潜在受损者的反抗力度往往远大于潜在受益者。

Where this goes into policy and governments and really important things, that governments are like agents or people who who think about the good of society. And agents, they take the economic view. They take the view of what things will be like at the end. They don't figure out that there are some people who going to be losing because of the reform that they make. And it turns out that you can really expect losers, potential losers, to fight a lot harder than potential winners.

这就是为什么改革往往看似公平，但当它们成功时，其成本几乎总是远超预期。成本更高的原因在于必须补偿受损者，而这一点常常未被预见。这个例子展示了行为改变的故事，以及不同视角间的差异——比如身处其中时感受到放弃三明治的痛苦，与未身处其中时的无感。

And that's the reason that reforms are frequently fair, and that when they succeed, they are almost always way more expensive than anticipated. And they're more expensive because you have to compensate the losers, and that frequently is not anticipated. So that's an example of a story about that incorporates behavior change and and the difference between perspectives, between being, you know, in the situation, feeling the pain of giving up the sandwich and not feeling the pain of giving up the sandwich.

这也会对公共政策产生重大影响，对吧？我们通常不会考虑或讨论这一点。这个角度非常有趣。我想回头谈谈基于'所见即全部'的情境决策，以及那些我们无法割舍的感受。物理环境如何影响我们的决定？或者说它真的有影响吗？

That would have huge public policy sort of implications too, right, that we don't tend to think about or discuss. That's a really interesting angle there. I wanna come back to sort of situational decision making based on sort of like what we see is all there is, and we have these feelings that we can't sort of disassociate with. How does environment play a role, like the physical environment in sort of what we decide, or does it?

我是说，有些显而易见的常识。当人们又热又烦躁、注意力分散、周围噪音很大时，他们就会对我们有正面评价。这点我们都知道。但即便如此仍存在谜团——比如许多人在咖啡馆里思维和工作效率更高，周围适度的噪音和活动反而有助于集中注意力。

I mean, you know, there are sort of obvious thing that we know. People are are hot and bothered and distracted and and there is a lot of noise and so on, then they'll think of us well. And that we know. That's But even there, there are puzzles. I mean, many people think and work a lot better in cafes, you know, where there is actually ambient noise and activity around them, and it helps them concentrate better.

所以环境的影响并非简单的线性关系。但可以肯定的是，你可以把环境设置得足够恶劣，让人无法正常思考——这是完全可行的。

So there isn't a very simple story of, the environment. But certainly, you can make the environment tough enough so that people won't be able to think properly. That's that's feasible.

我们能否采取某些措施，推动物理环境变得更有利于清晰思考呢？

Are there things that we could do to, I guess, push the environment to be more conducive to clearer thinking, the physical environment in this case?

哦，有各种微妙的影响因素，比如房间的颜色。某些颜色比其他颜色更理想，可以预期有些颜色更具镇静效果。你肯定不想待在红色房间里。

Oh, there are all sorts of, you know, odd fine dange, you know, the color of the color of the room. The some colors are better than others. And you would expect that some colors are more calming than others. So you wouldn't want to be in a red room.

做决策时。

Making decisions.

做决策。但你知道，那些都是极端和次要的影响。

Making decisions. But, you know, those are extreme and minor effects.

我想稍后再谈直觉和干扰。现在有什么特别阻碍清晰思维的因素我们可以先讨论吗？

I wanna come to intuition and noise later. Is there anything else that stands out that gets in the way of clear thinking that we can sort of bring to the surface now?

你知道，阻碍清晰思维的是我们对几乎所有事情都有直觉看法。所以一旦你给我一个问题，我就已经有了现成的答案。而这些现成答案正是阻碍清晰思维的东西，我们无法避免它们。这是一方面。情绪也会阻碍思考。

Well, you know, what what gets in the way of clear thinking is that we have we have intuitive views of almost everything. So as soon as you present a problem to me, I have, you know, I have some ready made answer. And what gets in the way of clear thinking are those ready made answers, we can't help but have them. So that's one thing that gets in the way. Emotions get in the way.

我认为独立的清晰思维在初步近似下是不可能的？我的意思是，大多数时候我们相信某些事并不是因为有充分的理由。如果你要我给出理由，我总能编出理由，但这些理由并非我们信念的成因。我们持有信念主要是因为我们信任某些人并采纳了他们的观点。

I would say that independent clear thinking is, to a first approximation, impossible? I mean, in the sense that, you know, we believe in things most of the time, not because we have good reasons to believe them. If you ask me for reasons, I'll explain you. I'll always find a reason, but the reasons are not the causes of our beliefs. We have beliefs because mostly we believe in some people and we trust them and we adopt their beliefs.

所以我们并非通过清晰思考获得信念，除非你是科学家或从事类似工作。

So we don't reach our beliefs by clear thinking, something, you know, unless you're a scientist or doing something like that.

但即便如此，范围可能也非常狭窄——

But even then, it's probably a very narrow-

确实非常局限。神经科学家同样会受到大量情绪干扰，比如固守己见、因别人显得更聪明而感到被冒犯等等。我认为真正清晰的思考比人们想象的要少得多。

But That's very narrow. There is a fair amount of emotion in neuroscientists as well that gets in the way of key thinking, you know, commitments to your previous views, being insulted that somebody thinks he's smarter than you are. I mean, lots of things get in the way than the neuroscientists. So I'd say there is less clear thinking than people like to think.

在信念形成阶段我们能做些什么吗？比如，当你说我们在读报纸时，读到这篇专栏文章，它结构严谨且符合我们的世界观，于是我们就采纳了这个观点。而我们却忘记了这并非来自自身经历或思考，而是从别人那里学来的。

Is there anything that we can do at the belief formation stage? Like, sounds almost as though when you say that we're reading a newspaper, we read this op ed, and it's well constructed and fits with our view of the world. Therefore, we adopt that opinion. And we forget the context that we didn't learn it through our own experience or reflection. We learned it sort of from somebody else.

所以我们不知道什么时候它会奏效或失效，但我们还是把它当作自己的观点提出来。

So we don't know when it's sort of likely to work or not work, but we just proffer that as our opinion is there.

这就是我相信气候变化的方式。你知道吗？我相信那些告诉我气候变化存在的人。而不相信气候变化的人，他们相信的是另一些人。所以

That's how I believe in climate change. You know? I believe in the people who tell me there is climate change. And the people who don't believe in climate change, they believe in other people. So

但同样地，面对假新闻之类的东西，我们也会有相同的反应。

But similarly, there's, like, fake news and all this other stuff that we we would have the same reaction to.

但你知道，我更容易相信我这边的假新闻，而不是另一边的假新闻。确实，过去十到十五年间美国的公共讨论质量出现了严重退化。以前人们还认同事实至上的理念。

You know, but but I'm much more likely to believe fake news on my side than the fake news on on the other side. I mean, it's true that there is an a huge degradation in in public discourse in in the recent ten, fifteen years in The United States. I mean, there used to be an idea that facts matter.

在不涉及政治的前提下（因为我不想谈政治），你认为这种现象背后的原因是什么？

What would be your hypothesis as to why that that is playing it? Without getting into politics, because I don't wanna talk politics, but, like, why is that?

嗯，这个问题很难不涉及政治来回答，因为总体政治极化产生了巨大影响，而且人们可以自主选择信息来源。

Well, I mean, it's hard to it's hard to answer that question without without politics, because it's a general political polarization has had a very big effect, and the fact that people can choose the sources of information.

我们稍微换个话题，谈谈直觉。关于你的一些研究，最让我印象深刻的是我们何时会信任直觉、何时不会。如果我理解有误请指正——这就像需要稳定环境、反复尝试和快速反馈的情境。而我认为大多数组织决策都不符合这种环境。

Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about intuition. I think one of the the things that strikes me the most about some of the work that you've done is the cases where we're likely to trust our intuition and when we're not. So if I'm correct me if I'm I'm getting this wrong. So it's sort of like a stable environment, repeated attempts, and rapid feedback. It strikes me that most decisions made in organizations do not fit that environment.

然而我们却大量依赖判断或经验来做这些决策。在这种背景下，我们有哪些方法能做出更好的决策呢？

And yet we're making a lot of these decisions on judgment or experience. What are the ways that we can sort of make better decisions with that in the context?

首先，我认为不该期望过高。要降低预期——对改进决策的预期要放低。基本准则就是放慢节奏，特别是当你产生强烈直觉时更要慢下来。确实存在一些程序和改善决策的方法，我们可以具体讨论。

Well, in the first place, think, you know, you shouldn't expect too much. Impact to low expectations. Shouldn't think, yeah, we should have low expectations about improving decisions. I mean, is, you know, one basic rule is slow down, especially if you if you have that immediate conviction, slow down. There are procedures, you know, there are ways of reaching better better decisions, reaching better judgments, and we can talk about them.

我很乐意探讨。若真想提高决策质量，就用算法吧。只要有可能就用算法替代人工判断。虽然依赖算法决策会带来社会成本，但决策质量往往会更好。

I would love to. If you really want to improve the quality of decision making, use algorithms. I mean, whenever wherever you can. If you can replace judgments by by rules and algorithms, they'll do better. There there are big social costs to trusting, allowing algorithm to make decisions, but but the decisions will likely to be better.

这是其一。若无法使用算法，那就放慢节奏。针对不同类型的问题有不同对策，比如预测类问题。我朋友菲利普·泰特洛克在《超预测》书中就研究了那些擅长预测未来的人的特质。

So that's one thing. If you can't use algorithms, then you slow yourself down. And then there are things that you can do for certain types of problems, and there are different types of problems. So one class of problems, like forecasting problems. My friend, Phil Tetlock, you know, has that book on superforecasters, where he identifies with people who are good at forecasting the future, what they do that makes them good.

他通过训练确实能提升人们的预测能力。而我特别感兴趣的是另一类判断类问题——当你需要评估选项或给情境打分时。我认为这类问题也有方法可循，这要追溯到我22岁在以色列军队的经历。

You know, he tries to train people, and he can improve people. So that's one class of problem. I'm interested specifically in another kind of problem, judgment problems, where basically you're considering options, or you're evaluating a situation, and you're trying to give it a score. There there there is advice, I think, on how to do it. For me, it goes back to something I did in the Israeli army when I was, like, 22 years old.

那是很久以前了，大约63年前。我作为军队里学历最高的心理学家（其实只有学士学位），被指派建立军队面试体系——当时以色列刚建国，各方面都很混乱。我的上司甚至是个化学家。

So that's a long time ago, like sixty three years ago. I was a psychologist in the Israeli army, and I was assigned the job of setting up an interviewing system for for the army. It's ridiculous, but, you know, this was the beginning of the state of Israel, so people were improvising all over the place. So I had a BA, and I was I think I were the best trained psychologist in the army. My my boss was a chemist.

精彩。但无论如何，当时的现有体系是让面试官通过面谈形成一种直觉性的整体印象，来判断应征者是否能成为优秀的作战士兵。这正是面试的核心目标。由于我读过一本关于保罗·尼尔的书，我采取了不同策略：我编造了六个特质，要求面试官针对每个特质独立提问、评估、打分并记录，再进入下一个特质。

Brilliant. But anyway, and the the existing system was one where people would interview and try to form an intuitive global image of how well, that recruit would do as a combat soldier. Which was the objective of the object of the interview. And because I had read a book about Paul Neal, I took a different tack. And the different tack was I identified six traits that I sort of made up, and I had them ask questions and evaluate each of these traits independently and score it and write down the score, then go on to the next trait.

他们必须完成全部六个特质的评估——这就是我的全部要求。那些比我年轻约一岁、同为应征者但极其聪明、因擅长此道而被选中的面试官们，对此怒不可遏。他们愤怒是因为我剥夺了他们运用直觉的权利。至今记得有人抗议说'你把我们变成了机器人'，于是我做出了妥协。

And they had to do it for all six traits, that was that's all I asked them to do. And the interviewers, who were about one year younger than I, all recruits, but very, very smart, selected for being good at it, they were furious with me. And they were furious with me because they wanted to exercise their intuition. And I still remember that one of them said, you're turning us into robots. So I compromised with them.

我说：'好吧，你们按我的方式来。'我告诉他们：'你们要追求可靠性而非有效性——有效性由我负责。'

And I said, okay. You you do it my way. And I told them, you try to be reliable, not valid. You know? I'm in charge of validity.

要求他们'保持可靠'确实显得傲慢，但我就是这么表述的。不过最后我补充：'完成所有评估后，请闭眼给出这个士兵整体潜力的最终评分。'当我们验证面试结果时，新方法较之前有显著提升。但意外发现是，这种最终直觉判断——亚当斯评分——本身也很有价值：它与六项特质平均分效果相当，且能提供额外信息。

You be reliable, which was pretty arrogant, but that's that's how I presented it. But then when you're done, close your eyes and just put down a number of how good a soldier is that guy going to be. And when we validated the results of the interview, it was a big improvement on what had gone on before. But the other surprise was that the final intuitive judgment, Adams, it was good. It was as good as the average of the six rate and not the same.

最终我们采用了各占50%的复合评分：一半来自特质评分，一半来自直觉判断。顺便说，这套方法在以色列军队沿用超过五十年。大约十五年前我重返旧基地时，研究部队指挥官向我介绍现行面试流程——她说到最后仍会要求'闭上眼睛评分'。

It added information. So actually, we ended up with a score that was half was determined by the specific ratings, and the intuition got half the weight. And and that, by the way, stayed in the Israeli army for well over fifty years. I don't know whether it's I think it probably some version of it was still being forced, but around fifteen years ago, I visited my old base, And and the commanding officer of the research unit, was telling me how they run the interview. And and then she said, and then we tell them, close your eyes.

这个'闭眼判断'的传统延续了五十年。如今这个理念正成为我著作的核心：做决策时应将选项视为候选人，分解为多个维度分别评估，最后统览整体轮廓。关键在于——延迟你的直觉判断。

So that that had stayed for fifty years. Now the close your eyes and that whole idea is now the basis of the book that I'm writing. So actually, I have the same idea, really, that when you are making decisions, you should think of options as if they were candidates. So you should break it up into dimensions, evaluate each dimension separately, then look at the profile. And, and the key is, delay your intuition.

不要像常人那样急于形成直觉。先聚焦于各个独立维度，当你掌握完整轮廓后再启动直觉——这样的判断会更优质。因为人们往往过早形成直觉，而仓促的直觉通常质量欠佳。若能延迟直觉直到掌握更充分信息，结果会好得多。

Don't try to form an intuition quickly, which is what we normally do. Focus on the separate points. And then when you have the whole profile, then you can have an intuition, and it's going to be better. Because people make form intuitions too quickly, and the rapid intuitions are not particularly good. So if you delay intuition until you have more information, it's going to be better.

我很好奇我们如何延迟直觉判断。

I'm curious how we delay intuition.

通过专注于独立问题来延迟直觉判断。我们的建议是，如果有董事会正在做投资决策，我们会告诉他们这样做：将不同维度分开，真正独立地思考每个维度。如果你是主席，不要让人们过早给出最终判断。我们要等到覆盖所有方面后再做决定。

You delay intuition by focusing on the separate problems. So our advice is that if you have, you know, a board of directors making decisions about the investment, we tell them you do it that way. Take the separate dimensions and really think about each dimension separately and independently. And don't allow, you know, if you're the chair, don't allow people to give their final judgment. So we wait until we cover the whole thing.

我的意思是，如果发现致命问题就立即停止。但如果没发现致命问题，就等到最后全面评估时再做决定，这样你的决策几乎肯定会更好。

I mean, if you find a deal breaker, then you stop. But if you haven't found a deal breaker, wait to the end and look at the profile, and then your decision is almost certainly going to be better.

这包括对问题的不同方面进行差异化加权吗？还是你们会提前强调这一点？或者...

Does that include weighting the different aspects of the problem differently, or do you highlight that in advance, or do you Yeah.

这样做能让你更清楚地看到权衡取舍。否则，当我们不遵循这种纪律时，人们会形成印象——你很快会形成印象，然后大部分时间都在证实它而非收集证据。如果印象方向错了，你就会不断证实错误，失去纠正的机会。独立性是关键，否则就像让一群犯罪证人互相交流证词一样。

I mean, it makes you see the trade offs more clearly. Otherwise, when we don't follow that discipline, there is a way in which people form impressions. Very quickly you form an impression, and then you spend most of your time confirming it instead of collecting evidence. And so if accidentally your impression was in the wrong direction, you're going to confirm it, and you don't give yourself a chance to correct it. Independence is the key, because otherwise, when you don't take those precautions, it's like having a bunch of witnesses to some crime and allowing those witnesses to talk to each other.

如果你追求真相，让他们严格隔离并分别收集证词会比让他们互相交流更有价值。

They're going to be less valuable if you're interested in the truth than keeping them rigidly separate and collecting what they have to say.

你见过哪些可复用的方法？无论是在特定组织还是跨组织层面，不仅能可靠地发现否定性证据，还能重视这些证据而非轻易驳回。是否存在这样的框架？

What have you seen work in a repeatable way, It may be a particular organization or across organizations to not only reliably surface disconfirming evidence, but then place a value on what is surfaced instead of being dismissive. Is is there a framework for that? Is there

嗯，确实有很多，你知道的，比如红队、蓝队、魔鬼代言人这样的流程。我是说，已经有很多尝试了。总的来说，如果你是决策团队的负责人，你的任务之一就是保护持异议者，因为他们非常有价值，你应该让提出异议变得不那么痛苦，或者尽可能不痛苦。提出异议确实很难，既痛苦又代价高昂，所以保护异议者很重要。

Well, yeah, there are many, you know, there there are many procedures like red team, blue team, devil's advocate. I mean, there's there have been, you know, many attempts. In in general, you know, if you are if you are the head of the group that makes decisions, one of your missions would be to protect the dissenters, because they're very valuable, and you should make it painless to to dissent, or as painless as possible. Well, it's hard to dissent. It's painful and costly, so protecting dissenters is important.

我很好奇直觉和判断之间的区别。你提到过直觉、判断、直觉判断。能给我讲讲这些概念的区别吗？

I'm curious about the distinction between intuition and judgment. You you had mentioned intuition, judgment, intuitive judgments. Can can you walk me through some of, like, how those differ?

这有点难以区分。判断是你将大量信息非正式地整合成某种评分时所做的行为。我和我的合著者在正在写的书中，把判断称为测量，但这种测量的工具是你的大脑。你是非正式地进行判断的，正因如此，人们不一定会达成一致。

It's a bit hard to separate. And judgment is is what you do when you integrate a lot of information informally into a score of some kind. I we speak, we being my co authors and I in the book we're writing, we speak of judgment as measurement, but it's measurement where the measuring instrument is your mind. But you do it informally. And because you do it informally, people are going are not necessarily going to agree.

所以每当我们说这是需要判断的事情时，我们就是在允许差异和变化的存在。判断可以快些或慢些，系统些或随意些。一端是完全直觉，让判断快速形成；另一端则是试图延迟直觉。但最终，如果你通过判断做决定，就会得出一个类似直觉的判断，并据此行动。

So wherever we say it's a matter for judgment, we're allowing for differences, for variability. Now judgment can be more or less slow, more or less systematic. So at one end, have pure intuition where you allow the judgment to go very quickly and so on. And at the other end, you try to delay intuition. But ultimately, if you're making it by judgment, you're going to have a judgment, and it's going to be like an intuition, and you're going to go with it.

所以你的判断或多或少是经过深思熟虑的。直觉总会在某个时刻参与其中。

So you're more or less deliberate judgment. Intuition is always involved at one point or another.

你要么是在倾听直觉，要么是在抵制它。

You're either sort of like listening to it or fending it off.

是的。我们的建议是抵制它。

Yeah. And our recommendation is fend it off.

有没有方法可以评判一个人判断力的质量？是的，当然。我的意思是，其中一些标准会因具体情境而异，但我们还能通过哪些其他方式来判断呢？

Are there ways to judge the quality of somebody's judgment? Yeah. Sure. I mean, some of them would be unique to the actual scenario, but what are the sort of other ways that we could?

嗯，我是说，你可以要求人们解释他们的判断依据，然后评估这些解释的质量——比如是否合乎逻辑、是否基于证据、是否考虑了所有证据、是否受到主观愿望的强烈影响、是否在做出所谓判断前就已经存在思维混乱。你看，判断力可能出错的方式有很多，这些都是可以识别的。虽然识别优秀判断力比较困难，但发现错误却很容易，而且判断出错的方式确实不少。

Well, I mean, you you may require people to explain their judgments, and evaluating the quality of the explanation is, you know, whether it's logical, whether it uses the evidence, whether it uses all the evidence, whether it is strongly influenced by wishes, whether the confusion was reached before the judgment supposedly is made. You know, there are lots of there are lots of ways for judgment to fail that can be recognized. So it's harder to recognize very good judgment, but it's really easy to see, you know, what goes wrong, and there are quite a few ways for judgment to go wrong.

我认为其中部分问题源于认知偏差，比如过度自信或从小样本中过度推断。之前采访中我听你说过一件有趣的事——如果我记错了请纠正——你研究认知偏差几乎一辈子，但在避免这些偏差方面并不比任何人强。

And I think some of those ways are the cognitive biases, like overconfidence and sort of using small or extrapolating from small sample sizes. And one of the interesting things that I've heard you say in interviews before, so correct me if I'm off here, is that you've studied cognitive biases effectively your whole life, and you're no better at avoiding them than anybody else.

确实。好不到哪儿去。是的。

Yeah. Certainly. Not much better. No.

那我们其他人还有什么希望？

What hope do the rest of us have?

希望不大。我是说，我认为人们的判断力确实受教育程度影响。所以总体而言，受教育程度更高的人平均会做出更好的判断。但如果有人决定'我要提高判断力'，我觉得这不太现实。我对组织更有信心，因为组织思考速度更慢，有既定思考流程，因此你可以控制这些流程。

Not much. I mean, I never, you know, I think, you know, the quality of people's judgment is affected by education. But, so in general, more educated people make better judgments, I think, on average. But people decide I'm going to make better judgments, I don't think that's very hopeful. I'm much more hopeful about organizations, because organizations think more slowly, and they have procedures for thinking, and so you can control the procedures.

个人的判断力真的很难修正。但并非不可能。

Individual judgment is really hard to fix. Not impossible.

我观察到人们应对认知偏见的常见做法是列个清单，像检查表一样逐条核对，然后解释为什么这些偏见在当前情境不适用。这让我想到，人越聪明，就越能编造出各种理由来合理化自己的逃避行为。

One of the things that I see people do in response to cognitive biases and trying to account for them is to sort of make a list of them, almost like a checklist, and then go through that checklist and explain or rationalize why those things don't apply in this situation. It also strikes me that the more intelligent you are, the more stories you'd be able to conjure up about why why you're avoiding this.

我觉得这并不乐观，因为偏见种类繁多且作用方向各异。有时你能识别出自己容易在特定情况下犯错的场景，就像视觉错觉一样。当你认出某种模式会导致错觉时，就不会轻信自己的眼睛，明白吗？

I really think that's not very hopeful because there are so many biases, and the biases work in different directions anyway. So sometimes you can recognize a situation as one in which you're you're likely to be wrong in a particular way. So that's like illusions. If you if you recognize a particular pattern as something that gives rise to a visual illusion, then you don't trust your eyes. You know?

你会采取其他行动。同样地，当你意识到自己可能犯错时也会这样。比如你能识别出锚定效应的重要性——当与人谈判价格时，对方开价很高就会产生影响。你应该知道先出价的人在谈判中占优势，因为初始数字会改变人们对合理范围的判断。

You do something else. And the same thing happens when you recognize this is a situation where I'm likely to make an error. So sometimes you can recognize the importance, for example, of what we've called an anchor. So, you're going to negotiate a price with somebody, they start very high, and that has an effect. So you know, or you should know, that the person who moves first in a negotiation has an advantage, because the first number changes everybody's view of what is considered plausible.

这种效应会把局面推向特定方向。人们可以学会识别并抵抗它。我教谈判技巧时常说：如果对方抛出荒谬数字，你就该发脾气、大闹一场，声明绝不以这个数字为谈判起点。

So it moves things in that direction. That's that's a phenomenon. People can learn that, and they can learn to resist it. So when I was teaching negotiations, I would say, somebody does that to you, comes up with a number that's absurd, I would say lose your temper, make a scene. Say, I will not start the conversation from that number.

这数字太荒唐了，我们必须把它抹掉重来。只要意识到这点就能改进。就像人们都知道不该在重大交通事故刚发生后立即做道路安全决策，

It's an absurd number. I don't want to, let's erase that number. So that's something that, you know, you can improve if you recognize it. I think people are aware of the fact that you shouldn't make a decision about road safety within a short interval of a terrible accident. You know?

应该让情绪平复下来。但更隐蔽且难以纠正的错误在于：最佳预测永远比你直觉判断更温和。正如我们所说，直觉预测不具备回归性——它意识不到均值回归现象。但统计学就是统计学，

So you should allow things to settle down and cool down. There is a more subtle error and harder harder to fix, but that the best prediction, the best guess is always less extreme than your impression. Intuitive prediction is, as we say, not regressive. It doesn't recognize regression to the mean. But statistics is statistics.

在统计规律中，极端情况总会趋于平缓。要我举个关于偏见最经典的例子吗？

In statistics, things are less extreme. Should I give you my favorite example of the bias?

好的，请继续。

Yeah, please. Okay.

我一直想不出更好的例子。但这个故事是关于朱莉的。这是故事的一部分。那是她的名字。她是大学即将毕业的高年级学生。

I have been unable to think of a better one. But the story is about Julie. That's part of the story. That's her name. She is a graduating senior at University.

我要告诉你一个关于她的事实，她四岁时就能流利阅读，这影响了她的GPA。有趣的是，每个人都有个数字。我刚说完这件事，你心里就浮现了她的数字。现在我们知道了那个数字的来源。这确实是我少数能完全理解的事情之一。

And I'll tell you one fact about her, that she read fluently when she was four, puts her GPA. And and the interesting thing here is that everybody has a number. As soon as I told you that thing, her number came to mind. Now we know where that number came from. We really that's one of the few things that I'm reasonably sure I understand perfectly.

当你听说她四岁就能流利阅读时，你会对她有多聪明、四岁时有多早熟形成印象。你可以用百分位数来衡量。比如这使她在某种资质或能力上处于很高的百分位——如果她两岁半就能阅读会更极端，但四岁已经很高了。大概在第90百分位左右。

And this is that when you hear she read fluently at age four, you get an impression of how smart she is, of how precocious she was at age four. And you could put that in percentiles. You know, whether that put her on a percentile for sort of aptitude, ability, and it's high. It's not you know, if she had read fluently at age two and a half, it would be more extreme, but age four is pretty high. So say at the ninetieth percentile.

接着你脑海中浮现的GPA也会在成绩分布的第90百分位附近。所以你做出的预测会与印象同样极端。嗯。从统计学角度看这很愚蠢，因为孩子学会阅读的年龄显然不能完全预测GPA。不过总比没有依据强。

And and then the GPA that comes to your mind is around the ninetieth percentile in the distribution of GPA. So you pick something, your prediction is as extreme as your impression. Mhmm. And it's idiotic, statistically, completely stupid, because clearly, the age at which a child learned to read is not all that diagnostic with respect to GPA. So it's better than nothing.

如果你一无所知，你会预测平均GPA大概是3.1或3.2。现在知道她很聪明，可能会稍高些，但不会到3.7。这就是所谓的偏差——非回归性预测，这种倾向很难抗拒。有时我能抵抗，但在重要事情上从来做不到。

If you didn't know anything, you would predict the mean GPA would have rated 3.1, 3.2. Now she's bright, so probably a little higher, but not 3.7. You don't want to so that's called that's a bias. That's nonregressive prediction, and that's very hard to resist. Sometimes I'm able to resist it, but never when it's important.

当我真正投入某件事时，我根本不会考虑这些。但有时我会提醒自己：'这种情况应该调整预测'。

You know, when I'm really involved in something, I don't think about it. But sometimes I will recommend, oh, you know, that's a situation. I should moderate my prediction.

如果你意识到这一点，那就是一个你可以自我说服的例子

And if you're conscious of it, that's an example of one you can sort of talk yourself

说服自己不做？是的。你也可以说服自己去做。虽然，你知道，通常人们总会找到作弊的方式，最终——这很值得注意，当你在学术界待久了，经历过许多讨论求职者的场合后，就会发现这类荒谬现象非常普遍。

out of? Yeah. You can talk yourself into. Although, you know, you you usually will find a way to cheat and end up with your it's- that's remarkable, you know, when you've been in academic life a long time, so you've been in many situations where people discuss a job candidate. And absurdities of that kind are very common.

比如某个求职者做了场报告，大家评价时——这是我在伯克利任教时真实发生的案例——那场报告其实不太理想，演讲者有些结巴。但那人其实拿过教学奖项，然而讨论时人们却说‘他不会教书’。明白吗？我们只听了一场报告而已。

So somebody, a job candidate gives a talk, and people evaluate the talk, and this is something happened, you know, at Berkeley when I was teaching there, that somebody in the talk wasn't a very good talk. Stammered a bit. Now that person had teaching prizes, and yet what was said about him in the discussion, he can't teach. You know? We we heard the talk.

这显然是个误判。但讽刺的是，即便你指出这个错误，人们还是不想聘用他，就因为那场糟糕的报告。这种偏见很难抵抗。

So that's a mistake. But the funny thing is you can point out to people that that's a mistake. They still don't want to hire him because he gave a lousy talk. So, it's hard to resist.

有意思。我认为我能得到这份工作，部分原因是在面试中运用了心理学技巧——不断追问自己为何适合这个岗位，并强化这种信念。我想再谈谈‘刺激-决策’的即时性现象，比如道路发生惨烈事故后人们会重新思考交通政策。你觉得这其中有多少是社会压力导致的？

It's interesting. One of the I think one of the ways I probably got my job is using psychology in the interview, which is asking why I was there and then reinforcing those beliefs throughout the interview. I wanna come back just one second to the the immediacy of sort of having a stimulus and then making a decision. So we use the example of roads and a tragic accident happens and you're rethinking sort of policy or laws around the roads. How much of that do you think is social pressure?

我在想是否可以进一步类推：我们被训练成要立即回答试卷问题，对吧？看到题目就作答。政治人物也被要求（或许用‘强化’更准确，‘训练’这个词不太妥）必须对事件立即回应，即便明知最佳策略应该是‘让事态沉淀，花时间思考’。

And I'm I'm wondering if we could even extrapolate that a little more to we're taught to answer questions on a test right away. Right? So we see this question and we answer it. We're taught that we or maybe it's reinforced, taught is probably the wrong word, that politicians need to have an immediate response to. And even if they know the best thing to do is like, okay, let this settle, take some time.

整个社会似乎都在要求这种即时反应，但客观环境其实并不支持这样做。

Society writ large seems to demand it. Like, the environment is not conducive.

我认为很明显，人们更喜欢直觉敏锐且自信过头的领导者。那些过于深思熟虑的领导人反而会招致怀疑。你看，奥巴马在这方面就比乔治·布什吃亏些，对吧？

I think it's pretty clear that people prefer leaders who are intuitive and who are overconfident. Leaders who deliberate too much are viewed with suspicion. You know? So I think Obama was at a certain disadvantage relative to George Bush. You know?

因为他被认为太过审慎。没错，他确实更谨慎。但当你过分斟酌时，看起来就像不知所措。而充满自信的行动——总体而言，人们渴望的正是这种直觉型领袖。

Because he was seen as more deliberate. Yeah. He was more deliberate. And then when you're very deliberate, you look as if you don't know what you're doing. But when you act with confidence so people want leaders who are intuitive, I think, by and large.

前提是他们具备判断力。

Provided they read.

我正在梳理我们讨论中涉及的几个复杂议题。您教授过谈判课程，我很好奇在您的心理学研究框架下，关于谈判有哪些核心教学内容是每个人都应该掌握的？

Just working my way back through some of these rabbit holes that we've gone down. You you taught negotiations. I'm curious what would be in your your sort of syllabus for negotiations that everybody should learn about negotiations when it comes to your work in psychology?

这要回到我们最初的命题。谈判教学的精髓在于：谈判不是说服对方，而是理解对方。这需要你放慢节奏，克制本能反应——因为说服欲是最原始的施压冲动。

Well, you know, the that goes back to a theme that we started with. The essence of teaching negotiations that negotiations is not about trying to convince the other guy. It's about trying to understand them. So again, it's slowing yourself down. It's not doing what comes naturally because trying to convince them is a prime pressure.

论据、承诺和威胁永远是最直接的施压手段。但真正关键的是理解——明白如何让对方轻松接受你的方案，这完全反直觉。谈判教学最令人惊讶的就是这点：我们被社会驯化的本能是施加压力，但高明做法恰恰相反。

Arguments, promises, and threats are always a prime pressure. And what you really want is understand, you know, what you can do to make it easy for them, to move your way, very nonintuitive. That's a surprising thing when you teach negotiation. It's not obvious. You know, we are we are taught to apply pressure, I mean, socialize that way.

您曾提到组织内部存在特定的思维流程规范。在您看来，是否有特别值得借鉴的规范能提升思维质量？或者至少能通过反馈机制来改善思考水平？

You'd mentioned that there was procedures for thinking in organizations. Are there any that stand out in your mind that we could use to elevate thinking and if not elevate, but give feedback on the quality of thinking to improve it?

我认为最受欢迎的一个想法是Gary Klein提出的'事前剖析'法。这是个普遍认可的好方法，人们非常喜欢这个理念。具体来说，当你们即将做出决策时（注意不是已经做出，那样就太迟了），把相关人员召集到会议室。他建议：假设现在是两年后，我们实施了正在考虑的决策，结果却是一场灾难。

Well, I think one of the ideas that people like the most is an idea by Gary Klein that he calls the premortem. And that's a that's a universal winner. People really like that idea. And this is that when you're about to make a decision, a group, not quite, because if you've made it, it's too late, but you're approaching it. And then you get people in a room, who can be the people who are making the decision, And he said, suppose it's two years from now, and we made the decision that we're contemplating, and it turned out to be a disaster.

现在你面前有张纸，请用要点形式写下这场灾难的始末。这就是事前剖析。这个构思非常精妙——因为在临近决策时，人们往往难以提出质疑。

Now you have a page in front of you. Write the history of that disaster in bullets. That's the premotor. And it's beautiful as an idea. It's beautiful because when people are coming close to a decision, it becomes difficult to raise doubts or to raise questions.

当团队接近决策时，那些拖慢进度的人会被视为烦人的绊脚石，大家都想摆脱他们。而事前剖析法不仅使这种异议和质疑合法化，实际上还予以鼓励。所以这是个绝妙的主意。

People who are slowing the group down when the group is nearing a decision are perceived as really, you know, torturous, annoying. You know, there's you want to get rid of them. And the premortem legitimizes that sort of dissent and that sort of doubt. Not only legitimizes it, you know, it rewards it. And so that's a very good idea.

虽然我不认为它能完全避免重大决策失误，但肯定能让人们注意到潜在漏洞，促使他们采取更安全的决策措施。这是个好方法，当然还有其他许多方法。

I don't, you know, I don't think that it's going to prevent people from making mistakes, big mistakes, but it could, certainly, it will alert people to possible loopholes, to things that they ought to do to make a safer decision. So that's a good procedure. And there are many others.

你想到什么例子？

What comes to mind?

我想到的是确保情报收集——我是说信息采集——独立于决策者的意愿。必须保护证据收集人员的独立性。另外还有个不受欢迎但若可行会很有益的做法：在讨论某个议题前，提前分发材料让参与者思考，并要求他们在讨论开始前书面写下自己支持的决策方案。这有很多好处。

What comes to mind is to make intelligence, I mean, the collection of information independent of the decision maker's wishes. And you really want to protect the independence of the people collecting the evidence. And I would add to, you know, a procedure that really people don't like, but if it were possible to implement it, I think it would be good. And that's that when you're going to be discussing a topic and it's done in advance and people in sense of material to think about the topic, that you may want them to write down their decision, the decision they are in favor of before the discussion starts. That has many advantages.

这样做能带来更多元的观点，因为群体讨论容易快速趋同；同时迫使人们更好准备。尽管人们通常抗拒这种做法，我也不确定是否可行，但若能实施显然会是个好主意。

It's going to give you a broader diversity of points of view, because people tend to converge very quickly in in a group discussion, and it forces people to be better prepared. So it's except people don't want this. So I I don't know whether it's even possible to implement it. But clearly, if you could, it could be a good idea.

人们不想要它的原因是什么？

What are the reasons people don't want it?

工作量太大了。

It's too much work.

没错。迫使你做一大堆工作，而不是那种你可以勉强应付的表面功夫，确实如此。

Right. Forces you to do a whole bunch of work, rather than the signaling you can sort of get away with, which Yeah.

然后，你知道，总得有人准备案例材料，所以我大致浏览了一下，发现很多会议实际上是在异步浪费大量时间，提高会议质量将是个重大改进。

And then, you know, there's somebody who's going to prepare the case, and so I glanced at the material, and then, you know so a lot of meetings are tremendous async for wasted time, and improving the quality of meetings would be a big thing.

对此你有什么改进建议吗？

Do you have any insights on how to do that?

缩短会议时间。你知道，我不是专业优化会议的，所以我有些想法但不全面。我认为按顺序逐个讨论议题的会议结构非常有用。举个例子，我咨询时曾建议过，但不知为何人们不接受这个提议。

Keeping them short. You know, I'm not a professional at at fixing meetings, so I I have I have a few ideas, but not a complete view. The the question of structuring the meetings to be discussing topics one at a time, that I think is really useful. I'll give you an example. I mean, it's something that I suggested when I was consulting, but for some reason, people didn't buy that suggestion.

比如当投资公司讨论一笔大投资时，员工会准备分章节的简报书。我们建议员工应在每章结尾给出评分——单就本章内容而言，如何独立影响最终决策。这样董事会会议就可以逐个讨论这些评分，实现我前面说的效果：对各个维度做出判断（我们称之为中介评估，这是我们的行话）。

So you when an investment is being discussed, say, by by investment firm, some staff people, if it's a big investment, staff people will prepare a briefing book with chapters. Now our recommendation would be that the staff should end each chapter with a score. How does that chapter, taken on its own, independently of anything else, affect the likely decision. And then you could structure the meeting, the discuss of this, the meeting of the board, say, to discuss these scores one at a time. That has the effect that I was talking about earlier, making the decision, making the judgments about the dimensions, we call them mediating assessments, is our jargon too.

首先进行调解评估，然后了解相关情况，最后做出整体判断。你可以构建这个流程。如果员工提交了评分并在董事会上讨论，我们是否接受这个评分？你是在迫使人们审视证据。

The mediating assessments come first, and then you have the profile of them, and then you make a global judgment. And you can structure it. So if the staff has presented a score and you discuss in the board, do we accept this score? You're forcing people to have a look at the evidence.

还要思考他们为何必须拒绝，然后他们会觉得必须构建一个可能不太直观的论点。

And think about why they would have to reject, and then they they feel like they have to construct an argument that might be less intuitive.

就是这样。你知道，有办法做到这一点，但如果过于死板，也行不通。所以

That's it. So, you know, there are ways of doing this, but, if you're going to be too rigid about it, it won't work either. So

我很好奇你作为顾问还提过哪些没人听从的建议。

I'm curious what other advice you gave as a consultant that nobody followed.

哦，我是说，基本上我提的所有建议都没人采纳。要知道，如果你指望自己的建议被采纳，那就不该当顾问。你必须尽力提供最佳建议。

Oh, I mean, literally, all the advice I gave, people don't follow. I mean, you know, I think that's that's not you shouldn't, you know, you're not going to be a consultant if you expect your advice to be taken. You have to give the best advice you can.

还有哪些你认为具有广泛适用性的建议案例？就是你曾建议过别人，却看到他们搞砸了的那些？

What would be other examples of something you think would be widely applicable that you would advise, you would have advised people, and you just sort of like saw them drop the ball?

嗯，我会建议经常做决策的人记录下他们的决定及其结果，这样以后可以评估流程，看看那些成功和不那么成功的决定之间是否存在共性。人们讨厌做这种事。为什么你

Well, I mean, you know, I would advise people who make a lot of decisions to keep track their decisions and of how they turned out so that later you can come and evaluate your procedures and and see whether there is anything that is in common with those decisions that turned out well and didn't, not so well, and so on. People hate doing this. Why do you

你觉得人们为什么讨厌做这件事？

think people hate doing it?

哦，因为事后看来，他们可能会显得愚蠢，其中一些人或所有人，尤其是领导者，所以他们真的不喜欢记录。我是说，也有例外。比如雷·达里奥和他的公司，桥水基金那里一切都是透明的。对，桥水基金。但一般来说，根据我在桥水咨询的经验，不包括我自己。

Oh, because because retrospectively, they may look foolish, some of them or all of them, or in particular the leader, so they really don't like keeping track. I mean, are exceptions. Ray Dalio and his firm and where everything is explicit Bridgewater, yeah. Yeah, Bridgewater. But, in general, in my ex having consulted with Bridgewater, don't mean me.

但总的来说，我提出的建议从未被采纳过。

But but in general, then I suggested that never went anywhere.

你会建议人们记录哪些变量？比如，你的决策日志会是什么样子的？

What are the variables that you would recommend people keep track of? Like, what would your decision journal look like?

哦，我是说，我的决策日志会一团糟。我不是...我没有把自己当作榜样。但是

Oh, I mean, I my my decision journal would be a mess. I mean, I'm not I don't, I'm not putting myself as an example. But

显然，结果很重要，但那是事后才需要记录的。

So obviously, the outcome, but you've gotta do that post after.

是的。不过不，不。你会想记录主要论点，支持与反对的理由是什么？考虑过哪些替代方案？不。

Yeah. But no, no. You you would want to say, what were the main arguments, pro and con? What were the alternatives that were considered? No.

不需要非常详细，但应足够让你稍后能自行复盘。

It doesn't have to be very detailed, but it should be enough so that you can come later and debrief yourself.

是否需要校准？比如，你有多大把握？

Should you have a calibration? Like, what degree of confidence you are?

那会很好。这样，你知道的，就可以基于一些你能稍后评估的因素来决定。

That would be good. Then, you know, it would depend on something that you could evaluate late.

我突然想到，决策日志和事前剖析是一种识别那些可能被上级压制的人才的方法——有些人其实比他们的直属领导更擅长判断决策。这种方式能无痛地随时间校准评分，并持续识别判断力的质量。哦，确实。我觉得这对组织而言价值连城。是的。

It strikes me that decision journals and premortems are a way to identify people that are sort of perhaps suppressed by their manager, where you have somebody who's actually a better better at exercising judgment than the person that is, you know, that they're working for. And this would be a pain free sort of way to calibrate that score over time and identify the quality of judgment in a consistent way. Oh, yeah. I mean That strikes me as worth a lot of money to an organization. Yeah.

但同时成本也非常高昂。

But but also very costly.

你会发现，任何威胁到领导权威的方案都难以被采纳，而且领导们可能也不愿采用会威胁下属的方案。人们真的很害怕陷入尴尬境地。你正在写一本关于噪声的书。

And you you will see that certainly anything that threatens the leader is not going to be adopted, and and leaders may not want something that threatened their subordinates either. People are really very worried about embarrassment. You're writing a book now on noise.

是的。说说决策中的噪声吧。你能解释下这个概念吗？

Yeah. Tell me about noise in decision making. Can you explain the concept?

是的，我可以这样解释：最初是在一家保险公司做咨询项目时，我们想到做个测试，看看那些理论上应该可以互换的同岗位人员是否意见一致。比如你去保险公司，核保员给你报价时，他代表的是公司。所以你会认为找哪个核保员报价应该差别不大，公司也是这么预期的。

Yeah. I can really explain it by saying what, you know, was the beginning of it, which was a consulting assignment at an insurance company, where we I had the idea of running a test to see whether people in a given role who were supposed to be interchangeable agreed with each other. So, you know, when you come to an insurance company and an underwriter gives you a premium, the underwriter speaks for the company. And so the it's you expect that any underwriter that it doesn't matter which underwriter you get to for the premiums. And the company has that expectation.

本不该有太大差异。于是我们设计了一些案例，让大约50位核保员分别评估保费。

It shouldn't make much difference. So we tested that, and they constructed some cases, and then we had some, like, 50 underwriters assess a premium for the case.

基于相同的信息。

With the same information.

没错。用的是他们自己构建的真实案例——我们没参与设计，实验也是他们操作的。但有趣的问题是：你认为差异会有多大？

Yeah. With a really very realistic, we didn't construct it. They constructed the case. So and they conducted the experiment. But now the interesting question is, how much variation do you expect there to be?

我们问高管们：假设随机抽取两位核保员，他们的报价差异百分比会是多少？就是用差价除以平均保费。你们觉得是多少？

So we asked the executives the following question. Suppose you take two underwriters at random. By what percentage do they differ? I mean, you look at the difference between their premium, divide that by the average premium. What number do you get?

人们预期是10%。不仅这家公司高管，不知为何大家都觉得是10%。但实际接近50%，五零。正是这个发现让我对莫里斯现象产生了好奇。

And people expect 10%. By the way, it's not only the executives in that company. For some reason, people expect 10%. And it was roughly 50%, five zero. So that's, you know, that's what made me curious about Morris.

还有件事：公司完全没意识到自己存在决策噪音问题，结果让他们大吃一惊。现在我们正在写书，因为噪音无处不在——只要有判断存在的地方就有噪音，而且比你想象的更严重。这就是规律。

That, and the fact that the company was completely unaware that it had a noise fault. It took them completely by surprise. So now we're writing a book because there's a lot of noise. So wherever a rule is that wherever there is judgment, there is noise, and more of it than you think. So that's the pattern.

是否有减少噪音的程序？反过来，噪音是否就像我直觉认为变异是好的，但也许仅限于进化概念中？

Are there procedures to reduce noise? And conversely, is noise like it strikes me that the variation would be good, but maybe only in an evolutionary concept?

我们称这种噪音为无用的变异性。我的意思是，如果有选择机制和反馈，变异性会非常有用。进化建立在变异性基础上，这当然是有用的。但承保人之间的噪音毫无价值，毫无意义。

Well, we call that noise as useless variability. I mean, variability can be very useful if you have a selection mechanism and some feedback. So evolution is built on variability, but, of course, it's useful. But noise among underwriters is useless. There's nothing.

什么都学不到。没有反馈。只是噪音，而且代价高昂。首先的建议当然是算法，正如我之前所说。算法比人、比判断更可靠。

Nothing gets learned. There's no feedback. It's just noise, and it's costly. The first advice, of course, would be algorithms, as I said earlier. So algorithm are better than people, than judgment.

这听起来反直觉，但确实千真万确。之后，可以采用我早前提到的有序决策流程，通过分解评估来实现，这是我们能做到的最佳方案。还有一个非常重要的方面我没提到，就是培训人们理解评分标准。给承保人的建议是：始终将案例与其他案例比较。如果可能，让他们与其他承保人共享相同的参考框架，这样就能减少噪音。

That's not intuitive, but it's really it's really true. And and after that, then, you know, the procedure that I mentioned earlier for making decisions in an orderly way by breaking it up into assessments, that's the best that we can do. And there is one very important aspect that I haven't mentioned, this is training people in what the scale is. So there is one piece of advice that you'd have for underwriters, that they should always compare the case to other cases. And if possible, if you can have them share the same frame of reference with other underwriters, we're going to cut down on the on the noise.

哦，这是个聪明的想法。

Oh, that's a clever idea.

控制评分标准。这在人力资源领域已有应用，比如绩效评估——现代商业的丑闻之一，操作非常困难。但他们有所谓的参考框架培训，教人们如何使用评分标准。超级预测者所做的部分工作，就是用概率单位做判断，并教会他们使用概率尺度。学习评分标准是减少噪音的重要环节。

Controlling the scale. And that exists in in human resources, where performance evaluation, which is one of the scandals of modern commerce, how difficult it is, but performance evaluation, they have the thing that's called frame of reference training, which is teaching people, you know, how to use the scale. There's a lot of variability in the scale. And a part of what the super forecasters do, they make judgments in probability units, and they teach them to use the probability scale. So learning the scale is a very important aspect of reducing nodes.

我知道我们时间快到了。过去十年里你改变了哪些观点？哦，很多。有什么重大的吗？

I know we're we're coming out to the end of our time here. What have you changed your mind on in the past ten years? Oh, a lot. Anything big?

是的。心理学界出现了可重复性危机，我在写《思考，快与慢》时深信不疑的一些理论，比如部分证据后来被证明不可靠，所以我不得不改变看法。

Yeah. There's been a replication crisis in psychology, and some of the stuff that I really believed in when I wrote Thinking Fast and Slow, some of the evidence has been discredited, so I've had to change my mind.

哪些是，最大的‘部分’是

What are the, what's the biggest Some of

最吸引人的理论，比如启动效应和无意识启动，这些在重复实验中都没能站住脚。我曾深信不疑，并当作真理来写，因为当时证据指向这个结论。事实上，我曾认为必须接受这些发表过的证据。我该为此自责——我太轻信了。我早该明白发表的东西未必真实，但当时没想透彻，所以我改变了观点。

the sexiest stuff, priming and unconscious priming, and so this hasn't held up in replication. And I believed it, and I wrote it as if it were true because, you know, the evidence suggested it. And in fact, I thought that you had to accept it because that was published evidence. And and I should have I blame myself for having been a big gullible. That is, I should have known that you can publish things even if they're not true, but I just didn't think that through, so I changed my mind.

现在我对惊人发现谨慎多了。最近我形成了个理论，解释为什么心理学家（其实所有社会科学家）容易夸大其词，对自己的假设过度自信。我做了不少反思。什么理论？理论的核心之一是这些假设都成立。

I'm now much more cautious about spectacular findings. I mean, recently, I've come I think I have a theory about why psychologists are prone, or social scientists generally, are prone to exaggerate, to be overconfident about their hypotheses. So I've done quite a bit of learning. What's the theory? Well, the theory, one element of the theory is that all these hypotheses are true.

什么意义上成立？比如那个著名研究：当向人们提到皱纹时，测量他们的步行速度会变慢。结果这个发现无法复现，这很让人痛心——它本是最受青睐的研究之一。但细想，提到皱纹若真对步行速度有影响，也绝不会让人走得更快。

In what sense? That, you know, if I there's a famous study that you mentioned wrinkles to people, and then you measure the speed at which they walk, and they walk more slowly. Turns out that hasn't held up in replication, which is very painful. It's one of the favorite studies. But, actually, you know that if you mention wrinkle, and it's going to have any effect on on the speed of walking, it's not making to make it's not going to make people faster.

若有任何影响，只会让人走得更慢。所以从方向性上说，这些假设都成立。但人们没看到的是：影响个体步行速度的因素浩如烟海，个体间的步行速度差异更是如此。这些都是噪音，而人们忽视了噪音。这里还涉及哲学和心理学的交叉问题。

If it has any influence, it's going to make them slower. So directionally, all these hypotheses are trained. But what there is is what people don't see is that the huge number of factors that determine the speed at which individuals walk and the differences in the speed of walking between individuals. And that's noise, and people neglect noise. And then there is something else, which is touches on both philosophy and and psychology.

当你有直觉时，存在清晰直觉和强烈直觉。举例来说，清晰直觉就像在‘罗马之旅’和‘罗马之旅加冰淇淋’之间做选择，答案显而易见。但这种直觉很微弱——毕竟你不会为多加个冰淇淋而多付钱。

When you have intuitions about things, there are clear intuitions, and there are strong intuitions. Another say, so a clear intuition is if I offer you a trip to Rome or a trip to Rome and an ice cream cone, you know what you prefer. It's easy. But it's very weak, of course. I mean, the amount of money you would pay to get a trip to Rome, and a trip to Rome, an ice cream cone, nothing.

但当你是一名哲学家时，我要补充一点——要看清清晰的直觉，你必须处于心理学家称之为‘被试内’的情境中，即你同时拥有冰淇淋甜筒和没有冰淇淋甜筒的状态。在被试内情境中，这是个简单问题；而在被试间情境中，这却是个无解难题。但哲学家始终处于被试内情境，而普通人则生活在被试间情境中，他们只体验单一条件。

But when you are a philosopher, and I should add one thing, to see the clear intuitions, you have to be in this kind of situation that psychologists call within subject, that you have both you have both with with the ice cream cone and without the ice cream So in a within subject situation, that's an easy problem. In a between subject situation, it's an impossible problem. But now if you're a philosopher, you're always in a within subject situation. And but people live in a between subject situation. They live, you know, in one's condition.

心理学家同样如此。当他们构建假设时处于被试内情境，却要推测被试间情境的结果，于是他们在清晰直觉与强烈直觉间彻底迷失。我们无法自我校准，导致对自己所知过度自信，却难以接受可能犯错的事实。

And the same thing is true for psychologists. So psychologists live in a when they cook up their hypotheses, they're in a within subject situation, but then they make guesses about what will happen between subjects, and they're completely lost between clear intuitions and strong intuition. We have no way of calibrating ourselves. So that makes us wildly overconfident about what we know and reluctant to accept that we may be wrong. That's

丹尼，这个对话在此结束再合适不过了。非常感谢你。

that's a great place to end this conversation, Danny. Thank you so much.

感谢您与我们一起聆听学习。请务必在fs.blog/newsletter注册我的免费每周通讯。Farnam Street网站还提供会员计划详情，包含节目文字稿、我的知识库、无广告节目等资源。关注我和Farnam Street的X、Instagram及LinkedIn账号保持联系。完整节目可在我们的YouTube频道观看。

Thanks for listening and learning with us. Be sure to sign up for my free weekly newsletter at fs.blog/newsletter. The Farnam Street website is also where you can get more info on our membership program, which includes access to episode transcripts, my repository, ad free episodes, and more. Follow myself and Farnam Street on X Instagram and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Plus you can watch full episodes on our YouTube channel.

若您喜欢我们的内容，您的评分和留言对我们意义重大。若真心认可，分享给朋友是壮大这个社区的最佳方式。下次

If you like what we're doing here, leaving a rating and review would mean the world. And if you really like us, sharing with a friend is the best way to grow this community. Until next

见。

time.